/sci/ - Science & Math

Welcome back.

1. Yes they did
2. No it wouldn't
3. No it doesn't.
4. No stars during day either
5. Inertia is a property of matter
6. Moon's not a perfect vacuum

You'd have to be fooling yourself to think dem Reds wouldn't see right through it if it were faked.

>>3680612
confirmed for not knowing any physics

>>3680612

Welcome to /sci/.

The C was not there on the original negatives. It was likely a hair.
No stars because of the short exposures
Flag is not waving, it's wagging due to astronauts moving it. Not only is it completely still in many different pictures, but the "waving" is pretty fucking unnatural. It's in a vacuum.
Minor solar flares are harmless given protection. No major solar flares occurred during the missions.
You can, because the Lunar soil's molecular bonds break and reform when disturbed. If they break due to a foot coming down on it, they reform into a footprint.
How do you know they didn't have the technology? The guidance computer, for one, may not have had much power but it ONLY had to do guidance.

Think of some better arguments please.

OH BOY HERE WE GO

I finally get to post ALL these matching weather patterns.

>>3680639
I think you meant to hit >>3680586

and op i found this nice picture of you

>Implying they were capable of fabricating these quickly enough to make them match
>Implying weather patterns repeat

>You can't make footprints in a vacuum.

>>3680689
>implying that couldn't easily have been faked so that it ostensibly came from the moon mission, when it just actually came from weather sattelites
>implying the receiving end isn't still NASA, who was behind the hoax
>implying if it was a hoax, that this would be any evidence in favor of its legitimacy

Wow.. Mythbusters tested 90% of the claims you just made and proved them all.. Go back to /b/

>2011
>not believing 911 was insidejob
>not believeing advanced people from other planets are visiting earth
ISHYGDDT

>>3680717
>Weather satellites halfway between the Earth and moon
>butthat'sfuckingwrongyouretard.jpg
>video explaining it to show you're wrong and a faggot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y

>>3680740
>he believes what the YouTube propaganda video tells him!

>>3680730
>Mythbusters

>>3680755
>Didn't even watch it because he's afraid to be wrong

You are the worst kind of faggot, faggot

Also
>Implying you aren't doing the same with conspiracy videos except those guys don't know shit about physics

>>3680757
>logical fallacies detected

>>3680767
>still can't answer issues posed by OP

>>3680807
They've already been answered, more than once, in multiple threads and even documentaries.

I can't believe that anyone other than a troll is still pushing this shit

>>3680807
>someone already has
>>3680675

Keep being a faggot bro

>implying there is a studio this fucking massive

>>3680757
I don't care about your opinions, the fact is Mythbusters proved them.

Yawn.

If the moon landing was fake, the Soviets would have told the world and fucking crucified us on the world stage.

>>3680851
You know what's funny?
If you say that, they claim the Soviet Space Program was all a fake too and they didn't want to be exposed by the U.S. in retaliation.

Most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard.

well, if you are willing to invest several thousands, you will see the shit they left behind. idiot

8 more to go!

>>3680863

How could they say the Soviet space program was fake?

Hey guys, all those satellites in orbit aren't real?

gif general.

>>3680885
I know, it's baffling how stupid they can be.
And then once they're out of theories they just say you're in on the conspiracy theory or the media is feeding you lies.

>>3680897
Well, I'm just trying to make it as clear as possible that we went there.

OP, good troll. I don't think you hooked a lot of fish but you sure got plenty of response.

For anyone who actually berieves this or is on the fence: firstly, what the fuck are you doing in /sci/?
And "B", do you really think that a coverup of this size could have been kept going for for damn near half a century? Even assuming they could have pulled it off at the start why no deathbed confessions? Why no single shred of legit evidence in decades?

y u no post original troll content?

>>3680851
Not if they thought it was real.

>>3680873
Thanks for posting these. Mind if i ask where the images that arent from the moon come from?

This troll copypasta generally seems to be quite successful.

The final five!

>>3680921
Where I got them?

I don't even have all of them, but there's an entire thread where one guy did some fucking impressive work to get all this.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132

>>3680928
I mean who took them. A satellite?

>>3680936
For most of them, the color ones are the Apollo missions, and the black and white ones are mostly from various noaa weather satellites.

Well, this is the last one.

let me ask this.

When the LEM left the lunar surface why was there no rocket propelling it back into space? It just kinda broke off and some sparks flew and thats it.

>>3680958
The fuel used produced a near-invisible flame.

1) NASA had Nazi scientists helping them out. They shot the American program in the foot several times, but they definitely had the capabilities.

2) The suits are designed to shield them from this, which are most of the same designs that go into protecting satellites. I'm not going to google that right now, but I'm sure of it.

3) Can you prove this picture? It should have been the OP.

4) This one is a little interesting. There is very little atmosphere, so I'm sure the astronauts could see stars. With the limits of photography, I think the light from the white astronaut suits and the surface of the moon "bloom out" the light of the stars.

5) In official videos, the flag does not wave. It stands pretty still, but can still extend and keep it's shape because... well, the forces acting upon it are so small that we see no disturbance in the flag. It's interesting to note how much comes up on YouTube when you look up "flag moon".

6) Again, I'm not a scientists, but objects in a vacuum sit still unless something acts upon it. It's my understanding that there are dust and rocks upon its surface. If you were to step onto the surface of the moon, the dust would be disturbed and take shape of your foot. If there is indeed dust on the moon, I don't see how you can argue this.

>>3680976

The flag stays horizontal because there is a metal rod holding it out.

>>3680976
It keeps extended because it had an extension coming from the pole going through the top of the flag.

And the C has been proven before to just be some piece of whatever that got onto the photo later and so it showed up in new prints.

>>3680586

>"You can't make footprints in a vacuum."

You sir are retarded

>>3680976
>NASA had Nazi scientists

Wut

>>3681023

Werner Vo.... You kno what, forget it.

>>3681023
Yeah. After the war, many were moved to the US and Russia. Wernher von Braun was a decorated SS officer.

>>3680586
I'm sure someone already covered this but...

1. Yes they did.
2. Nope.
3. Nope
4. Camera's don't usually pick up stars in photos. To get a picture with stars you have to be focused on the stars. Otherwise the camera will put the stars way out of focus. Stars will also sometimes be in pictures when your focusing on something very far away. Cameras have a max focus length.
5. The flag wasn't 'waving'. To get the flag in the ground you have to 'twist' it.
6. What?

>>3680827
>never heard of special effects
>haven't seen any of the action movies in the past two decades

>>3681023
This picture is only about maybe a third of all the scientists who were moved to other nations.

>>3680851
The Soviets couldn't prove that it was fake. They, nor the Americans, had the technology to go to the moon and verify visit by Americans. Especially at that time when no one knew how powerful computer imaging technology was, Soviets would have been a laughing stock if they denied the official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws
Aldrin really wants us to see what's out there, yet our government is so absorbed in bombing the middle east that we've got nothing to go on.

>>3681028

Von Braun died in 77', I wonder how he would have felt knowing his Saturn V lost funding to the Space Shuttle

>>3680975
I'm just sayin if it takes a saturn v rocket to get off the earth then how can it just take a little blast and some invisible flames to get off the moon?

1. they didn't have the technology to do it with a reasonable guarantee of safety, as evidenced by Apollo 13 and, well, all the stuff they shot into space and never heard from again, but they took the chance and it paid off
2. solar flares don't extend this far from the sun, and once they've detached they don't stay intact this far from the sun (I think >_>)
3. there's something you think looks like a C, the human brain is very good at matching things you see with things you saw before, even if they're not the same-- and even if they're completely different; even if it fulls conforms to that shape, with all the random collisions etc. something with a C shape scratched into it isn't inconceivable
4. I'm pretty sure I've seen stars in some of the lunar still pictures, if not I'd say it's probably glare from the sun, and of course for the moving pictures there were using newly-invented digital cameras with about the resolution of a GameBoy
5. it doesn't wave, it ripples, because it's thin and flexible and has momentum-- the process of planting it shakes it slightly, and with lower gravity and no air the ripples are more noticeable and take longer to die down
6. citation please
and yes, I know this is a troll, I typed all that in case there's an actual person here who believes that stuff

>>3681096

Damn good question

>>3681096
>>not sure if trolling

Gravity on the moon is about 16% that of the Earth and there is no friction from atmoshphere.

>>3681096
very good question

>>3681065
those cruise missiles hitting libya everyday cost a few million a piece... when we have this monolith on phobos demanding our attention.

pic related.

i personally think the moon is our way of practicing and perfecting space travel.

>>3681109
>>3681146
Am I on /sci/ or /b/?

>>3681118
I think it's more like 25%, but yes, it's much, much lower
>>3681156
source?

>>3681183
damn good question

Here's a pic of the size ratio between the saturn v and the lm

Almost all of the empty cavities in the saturn v rocket was filled with fuel.

Compare that with the lm which had to have room for the astronauts plus life support plus fuel for both landing, takeoff and reconnecting with the capsule which would have been traveling A LOT faster than the lm plus tv cameras, drills, misc tools, and space rocks.

>>3681195
>source?
i just googled "phobos monolith"

>>3681195
I googled it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1204254/Has-mystery-Mars-Monolith-solved.html

There's all sorts of talk about NASA keeping things from us or using some kind of software to "clean" images before presenting them to the public. Hoagland goes into the secret space program a bit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV6MVsmi6z8&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_63639))

Supposedly, there's a structure in the discs of Saturn.

>>3681301
ah, so more "OMG it's a face" reactions, like OP's rock with a C on it

If only we sent six separate manned missions...

If we didn't go to the moon, then what the hell was in those Saturn V Rockets?

>>3681529
America was in those rockets.

>>3680586
*sigh*
1. Irrelevant. This premise rests on the truth or falsehood or all the following premises regarding the footage of the moon landing
2. Only had they been in the path of a solar flare at the time of the landing, and even then, not necessarily so. What were the proposed RAD counts for the astronauts on the moon at the time?
3. False. Or better yet, prove it.
4. F-stop. Ground glare. Elementary aspects of photography.
5. Inertia and low gravity.
6. Proof? This claim is borderline retarded.

ijustgottrolled.exe